An open discussion about the Curia and the Q&S

[Calvin]

I want you people to finally address my underlying reason for trying to open up the Curia. Here goes, please pay attention and tell me why it should not be addressed:

The Questions and Suggestions forum performs the exact same function, with as much officialness as the Curia, and with less bureaucracy than the Curia. A popular suggestion there is as binding to Hex as a popular suggestion here - as in it isn't binding! If Hex likes it they will implement it without the Curia having any say. The only reason people believe they need to put a suggestion through the Curia is because most people on this site are ignorant of the lack of power within the Curia, and ignorant of the amount of power in the Q&S.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I posted my thoughts several times about this, in all of the respective threads.

it would be refreshing to hear new voices sharing their opinions about proposals, maybe even suggesting new ones, and I'm sure there are many established posters out there who have good ideas and would like to contribute to our debates.

They (the citizens) would still have the exclusive voting rights (basically: making curial decisions), chance to become a Curial officer or a Moderator, wearing the badge and posting in the Symposium.

I think we're doing much ado about nothing. I also think that some people want to feel soooo very important by monopolizing a decision-making subforum, even though the really important decision-making subforums are accessible only to admins and moderators. Curia is just an advisory body. Just like the Q&S. I honestly think, that my most contributive proposals were made in the Q&S, the rest could have been made in the Q&S too. After a second thought I agree with Calvin, the Curia is dying, very few citizens take part in the debates for no obvious reasons. The Symposium is dying too. If I want to start a political debate, I would rather go to the 'pit or the Academy to see more replies, the politically active citizens are posting there too anyway. The similarities of the Curia and the Q&S are staggering. Both Curia and Q&S are for proposing and recommending stuff for the Hex to review, poll results in both forums are non-binding, and both are great places for internet drama. Citizenship may be a good filter for proposing and voting on stuff, it may also be an indicator of becoming uncreative and disinterested in the matters of the site because of the "i dun my job already, let me be" attitude, not sure which. I encourage all non-citizens to freely make proposals in the Q&S and all citizens to post more in the Q&S, take part in the Q&S discussions just as solemnly as they would do it in the Curia. The bottom line of this thread is that, nuff said.

[pannonian]

The problem has always been a lack of doers, as opposed to talkers. Hence my suggestion that citizens should just go ahead and do stuff, rather than try to legislate things. Get a thread going in the Curia or Symposium where they can keep notes, but make their idea a reality, at least in practice, rather than formulate some legalistic Bill for its definition.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I agree with Pann on that, and I will also say that if there was ever an idea in the Curia that was really well liked it would probably get done without a vote, just as it would in the Q & S. Sadly I have not seen such an idea in the Curia, and most of them in the Q & S relate to smilies and other fairly insignificant items.

[Celsius]

still oppose......

[Augustus Lucifer]

There's one key point being missed. A poll in the Q&S is not binding in any way, shape, or form; but a Curia vote can be. If a 100-0-0 Q&S poll was held for what Hex felt was a stupid idea, they wouldn't be obliged to even say why they aren't going to do it(though they probably would out of courtesy). Same vote in the Curia and Hex is predisposed to implement it(especially if it's inconsequential) and has to provide their reasoning for a veto which in turn provides a foundation for amending the proposal to make it fit with the vision of Hex. So when you say:

The Questions and Suggestions forum performs the exact same function, with as much officialness as the Curia, and with less bureaucracy than the Curia. A popular suggestion there is as binding to Hex as a popular suggestion here - as in it isn't binding! If Hex likes it they will implement it without the Curia having any say. The only reason people believe they need to put a suggestion through the Curia is because most people on this site are ignorant of the lack of power within the Curia, and ignorant of the amount of power in the Q&S.

That's true in part, in that the Curia is an advisory body and not an executive or legislative body. But it's wrong when it assumes that Hex fancies romping around doing as they please whatever the Curia says. Take the Curial Commentary Thread -- it seems unlikely it would have been stickied if not for it passing a Curial vote. Because it did though, the predisposed action is to implement it if it lacks controversy, which it does. The key difference is that Hex should view a Q&S poll and implement it if the merit is exemplary and clearly trumps the current iteration. On the other hand, a Curial vote which passes should be viewed as to whether it would be detrimental. If not then it's worth changing because it can always be changed back; only when something lacks much discernible merit in the context of its predecessor does Hex seem to feel the need to veto it.

This is not to say Hex couldn't veto anything they fancy, because they could. The Curia is just an advisory body and Hex is the executive, but I doubt if you ask Garb and company they'd tell you they have an overall trend of overturning Curial decisions. It's about starting points, think innocent until proven guilty as opposed to guilty until proven innocent. Well Q&S polls are not implemented until proven expressly beneficial. Curia votes are implemented until proven detrimental. There's a key and fundamental difference there.

[Calvin]

No-one argues like AL. I concede to your excellent point.

[Belisarius]

The Curias power lies in its ability to destabalise the community if ever someone tries to control the community and has done so many times people rally behind it. The Curia is a symbol and a rallying point which becomes the most powerful weapon against any individual who seeks to take a community built by the community for the community and channel it for personal gain. Ogres.net, Spartan, Sulla, Archer, Myself and many Hexagon members have seen what the Curia can do, you can replace moderators and the like and delete it but the amount of intellectual damage it would inflict would cripple twc into nothing more than a fansite. Fansites die.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

The Curias power lies in its ability to destabalise the community if ever someone tries to control the community and has done so many times people rally behind it. The Curia is a symbol and a rallying point which becomes the most powerful weapon against any individual who seeks to take a community built by the community for the community and channel it for personal gain. Ogres.net, Spartan, Sulla, Archer, Myself and many Hexagon members have seen what the Curia can do, you can replace moderators and the like and delete it but the amount of intellectual damage it would inflict would cripple twc into nothing more than a fansite. Fansites die. I'm surprised Tac didnt come back to take it over yet!

been there, seen it, done it (several times), got bored, got fired (several times, some even for things I did do), almost bought the site (twice - which would have been a disaster by the by, Ian and Garb far better)

most fun here though was as head judge of the appeals, that was a good laugh , especially when Ferrets and Prof420 were on form

But sorry, I digress, in a (blatantly transparent) attempt to make the post somewhat on-topic, the Curia has always been a total pain in the backside but also absolutely brilliant. I always reckoned that the only way to get TWC to work properly was to get the Curia neutered as then people would concentrate on what the site was really for (gaming) rather than play politics.

Not nearly as much fun but a lot more peaceful

[Soulghast]

As much as I hate moderating Curial Discussions, I need to remind you that a certain standard of posting is expected of Citizens. Flames will not be tolerated.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

sorry, Bel and I just saying hi after about 14 months! Won't happen again

But my point about the Curia still stands, it is a great thing (and was the reason I originally joined TWC and spent so much time here) but it is also hugely destabilising.

[Viking Prince]

I respect the positions of both Calvin and Augustus Lucifer on this issue as well as the many others who support or oppose various solutions to what I view to be an important issue, My position is a bit differant though.

My argument for the opening can easily concede that there are differences between the Q&S and the Prothalamos . That there are differences or that they are similar is really missing the point though. When a citizen goes to post a vote, the ideal citizen is well informed on the issue before casting a vote. I suspect that many, if not most citizens, do not review the Q&S prior to voting. If so, how can the citizen be well informed prior to the vote?

The obvious solution is for all debate and discussion on a single proposal be in a single thread and that does mean allowing non citizens to debate and discuss the porposals. The Curia Commentary thread cannot serve this purpose as was clearly shown when Ponti merged several Q&S threads into the comentary thread.

I have no doubts that there will be some members that will need to have some posts deleted, some notes given, and even the rare forum ban invoked. I note that there has been a bit of a dust up here in this thread and only citizens are posting. I have no doubt that the Curator and any needed assistants can moderate the threads quite successfully.

I am just a bit curious -- if the moderation issues are put aside, what other reasons are stopping this issue from being resolved to my satisfation? Being a citizen has many options not available to the membership, just as being a member has options over that of just lurking on the net (posting, for example). I fail to see the reason for the barrier to participating in debate though. We are not suggesting the general membership be opened up to voting or posting in other areas of the Curia. Posting to threads such as this very thread are not going to be opened to member posting.

[pannonian]

I have no doubts that there will be some members that will need to have some posts deleted, some notes given, and even the rare forum ban invoked. I note that there has been a bit of a dust up here in this thread and only citizens are posting. I have no doubt that the Curator and any needed assistants can moderate the threads quite successfully.

AFAICS, it was two vets returning after a long hiatus to have a playful mock punch-up. Nothing serious, although if one doesn't know their background, it would look quite ugly.

IIRC Bel's been away for a fair few months, and was on-off for a fair while before that, while Tac's not been a regular since autumn 2007.

[Viking Prince]

AFAICS, it was two vets returning after a long hiatus to have a playful mock punch-up. Nothing serious, although if one doesn't know their background, it would look quite ugly.

IIRC Bel's been away for a fair few months, and was on-off for a fair while before that, while Tac's not been a regular since autumn 2007.

I hope I did not come over as being upset or disapproving -- the posts were deleted and that was all that I meant. "Dust up" might have been too strong of a phrase. Sorry.

Even the best citizens will have a deleted post for just being a bit off topic. I have had a post or so deleted as well. I just do not see the general member being necessarily worse in this regard than a citizen. There are only a handful of members that are problems for moderation purposes on a regular basis -- most register and just have fun participating within the rules of the site.

[Belisarius]

We happened was we met eachother today, it was planned on PM's to evoke memories of when the curia did use power. Plus its our hobby.

[imb39]

Think of the incident as the annual mud wrestling competition. It heralds the coming of summer! Quite an amusing piece of banter and brings back lots of fond memories.

[Desperado †]

There's one key point being missed. A poll in the Q&S is not binding in any way, shape, or form; but a Curia vote can be.

No, Curia votes are not any more binding than Q&S ones (save those that effect only ourselves). The difference is that Hex more often listen to the Curia's opinion, and more often implement what the Curia decides it wants.

[Belisarius]

Think of the incident as the annual mud wrestling competition. It heralds the coming of summer! Quite an amusing piece of banter and brings back lots of fond memories.

We did it for you ian!

[Hunter Makoy]

I agree with Pann on that, and I will also say that if there was ever an idea in the Curia that was really well liked it would probably get done without a vote, just as it would in the Q & S. Sadly I have not seen such an idea in the Curia, and most of them in the Q & S relate to smilies and other fairly insignificant items.

I agree, while they may be fairly equal in power, the Q&S certainly isn't putting forth any more meaningful ideas.

Calvin's argument, while nice, can be used just as well to keep the curia closed. AL's argument also points out that there is a necessity to the formality of the Curia.

[Viking Prince]

I agree, while they may be fairly equal in power, the Q&S certainly isn't putting forth any more meaningful ideas.

Calvin's argument, while nice, can be used just as well to keep the curia closed. AL's argument also points out that there is a necessity to the formality of the Curia.

The formality of the Curia is a very good point. One of the reasons there is the formality has to do with the fact that the discussion will end and there will be a vote tallied. The formality is the result of writing a formal proposal that may include a change to the constitution, the required formal suppport to move the proposal to a vote, amending the proposal as discussion proceeds, etc. There is no end objective as clearly defined for the Q&S.

Look to the difference in debate qualaty between Garb's Fight Club and the Mudpit. Again, the Club has a more formal structure and this drives for usually a better discussion. People are even more willing to concede the good points in a Club debate but are less likely to concede even that the sun rises in the East in the Mudpit.

The discussion of form and use has no bearing though on who can and cannot post. The level of discussion does follow formality. Both citizens and members do better with the formal structures.